The author of the communication is Modan Mukhlisov, a Kazakh citizen of Tatar ethnicity, born in 1961, serving a prison term in Arkalyk prison at the time of the submission of the communication. He claims that Kazakhstan has violated his rights under article 26 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol to the Covenant entered into force for the State party on 30 September 2009. The author is represented by counsel, Zhangazy Kunserkin.
Facts as submitted by the author
On 9 April 2003, the Almaty city court sentenced the author to 25 years’ imprisonment to be served at a correctional facility with a special regime. The author submits that while serving his sentence at the correctional facility in Arshaly village, he became a practising Muslim. He regularly prays, studies the Qur’an and observes fasting.
The author was consistently subjected to discriminatory treatment by the administration of the Arshaly correctional facility, based on his religious beliefs. For example, he was frequently isolated from other prisoners for no valid reason, deprived of medical assistance and family visits, and otherwise subjected to moral pressure and cruel treatment by the administration. The penitentiary administration constantly obstructed his religious practices, took away his religious literature and constantly demanded that he shave his beard, which, according to him, identifies him as a Muslim.3
- The author does not provide any specific evidence regarding the claims submitted in this paragraph, apart from the letter from the Kostanay regional Prosecutor’s Office which, in his view, proves that he had repeatedly complained about the actions of the administration. The copies of the complaints are not provided. ↩
On 17 May 2010, the Arshalynskiy district court sentenced the author to one (additional) year of imprisonment for disobeying the orders of the correctional facility administration.4
- The author acknowledges that he disobeyed the orders of the correctional facility administration regarding the cleaning of the prison, but claims that those orders were aimed at humiliating and pressurizing him. ↩
On an unspecified date, the author complained to the Kostanay regional Prosecutor’s Office regarding the discriminatory treatment he had suffered and the violations of his right to freedom of religion perpetrated by the officials of Arkalyk prison.6 The complaint was rejected on 21 September 2011 as non-substantiated.
- A copy of the complaint is not provided but the author submits the letter sent from the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law to the head of the Arkalyk prison. The letter states that during the visits conducted by the Bureau on 18 and 19 October 2011 to the Arkalyk prison, it was recorded that the author was being held in stringent conditions in a single cell and complained about the state of his health and lack of medical assistance. On the other hand, according to the letter from the Arkalyk prison officials, dated 3 February 2012, the author received appropriate medical assistance at his request. ↩
On 1 February 2013, the district court approved the second request of the penitentiary administration to transfer the author to Arkalyk prison for one year and six months. The author claims that this was done because of the fact that he prays and has a beard, which identifies him as a Muslim.7
- A copy of the request is not provided but in the decision of the district court of 1 February 2013 it is mentioned that among other disciplinary offences, the author was praying during one of the morning checks, thus preventing the administration from conducting the check effectively. ↩
On 21 May 2013, the Appeal Board of the Akmolinskiy regional court rejected the author’s appeal against the decision of the district court of 17 May 2010.
On 5 August 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the author’s application for a supervisory review of the court decisions of 17 May 2010 and 21 May 2013.
According to the author, the decision of the district court of 17 May 2010 is unlawful because he was discriminated against on the basis of his religious beliefs. He claims that during the proceedings before the district court he was deprived of his procedural rights on religious grounds. He also claims that he was not represented by a lawyer at those proceedings.8 He claims that he was not allowed to defend himself or, alternatively, he was so permitted but his testimony was not placed on the record of the proceedings before the district court.9 Consequently, he claims that the decision of the district court of 17 May 2010 was based solely on the testimonies of the penitentiary officials who had accused him of disobeying the orders of the correctional facility administration.
- In their decisions, the regional court and the Supreme Court state that the author himself refused the assistance of a lawyer, as evidenced by his written statement. A copy of those statements is not provided. ↩
- The record of the proceedings before the court is not provided. The author has not exhausted domestic remedies regarding this issue. ↩
The author also submits that the regional court and the Supreme Court did not give due consideration to his arguments regarding the discriminatory treatment meted out to him and the violation of his procedural rights, but based their decisions only on the testimonies and arguments of penitentiary officials. Such decision-making by the courts does not constitute a normal practice but instead reflects discriminatory State policy towards convicted Muslims, whose rights in the courts are generally not respected.
Complaint
The author claims to be a victim of discrimination, in violation of article 26 of the Covenant, as he was consistently subjected to discriminatory treatment by the administration of the correctional facility and was convicted and deprived of his procedural rights during the proceedings before the district court because of his religious beliefs. He also claims that the failure of the regional court and the Supreme Court to duly review the decision of the district court reflects discriminatory State policy towards convicted Muslims, in violation of article 26 of the Covenant.
The communication appears also to raise issues under article 18 of the Covenant, although not specifically invoked by the author. The author claims that the penitentiary administration obstructed his religious practices, took away his religious literature and constantly demanded that he shave his beard.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
By a note verbale of 27 October 2014, the State party submits that on 9 April 2003 the author was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment for, inter alia, robbery, theft of a car and weapons, use of force, forgery of documents, kidnapping and attempted murder. While in detention, on a number of occasions he disobeyed the lawful orders of the penitentiary administration concerning participation in the building and improvement works being undertaken at the facility. While serving his sentence in colony No. 161/12 in Kostanay region from 2004 to 2007, he was reprimanded and received warnings on four occasions. On 24 July 2009, he was transferred to correctional facility No. 166/5 in Astana. While in detention in correctional facility No. 166/5 the author continued to disobey the lawful orders of the administration and was given an official warning that he could be held criminally liable for disobedience.
The State party notes that pursuant to article 102 of the Penal Execution Code, convicts may be involved in, inter alia, building and improvement works of a detention facility and its territory without pay. On 6 February 2010, the author refused to participate in such improvement works. On the same day, the head of the facility found that the author had maliciously violated the detention regime and, as a result, punished him with five days’ detention in an isolation cell. The State party further enumerates the acts constituting “a malicious violation of the detention regime” pursuant to article 112 of the Penal Execution Code and the sanctions for such a violation pursuant to article 111 (1) and 132 of the Code.
On 5 March 2010, the author again refused to participate in the building works. As a result, he was given 16 days’ detention in solitary confinement. On 25 March 2010, he again refused to take part in the improvement works at the facility. Consequently, on 26 March 2010, criminal proceedings were initiated against him under article 360 (1) of the Criminal Code (wilful disobedience of the lawful orders of the administration of a detention facility). On 17 May 2010, the Arshalynskiy district court found the author guilty of having committed an offence under article 360 (1) of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. That sentence was added to his 25-year sentence of imprisonment in a correctional facility with a special regime. On 21 May 2013, the Akmolinskiy regional court upheld the judgment of the district court and the cassation appeal lodged by the author’s counsel was rejected.
Furthermore, given that the author still continued to disobey the lawful orders of the administration of the facility and violated the internal rules of detention, on 1 February 2013, the Arshalynskiy district court of the Akmolinskiy region sentenced him separately to an additional prison term of one year and six months. The State party submits that the author did not appeal that decision.
In the light of the issues mentioned above, the State party maintains that the communication is inadmissible. The fact of the author’s repeated refusal to obey the lawful orders of the penitentiary administration is corroborated by evidence in the form of documents and statements of witnesses. During the criminal proceedings, he maintained that he had refused to work as he considered that the administration of the facility had persecuted him and subjected him to degrading work. In that regard, the State party submits that the personnel of the detention facility acted in compliance with the internal regulations of a correctional facility and there are no grounds for considering participation in building and improvement works of a detention facility as degrading treatment.
Furthermore, the author’s claim of a violation of article 26 of the Covenant on account of his religious beliefs is unfounded. The State party notes that freedom of conscience is guaranteed by article 22 of the Constitution. Pursuant to article 22, the right to freedom of conscience must not curtail or violate “universal and citizen’s rights and obligations before a State”. No one may refuse to observe his or her obligations as prescribed by the Constitution or national laws on account of his or her religious beliefs. Pursuant to article 12 of the Penal Execution Code, convicts are guaranteed the right to freedom of conscience. In that regard, the State party submits that the penitentiary administration ensures the necessary conditions for holding religious rituals in line with the prescribed national laws and regulations. Participation in religious worship is voluntary. However, it must neither violate the internal rules of the relevant facility nor infringe the rights of other detainees.
The State party further notes that in accordance with the criminal legislation, a convict may approach, inter alia, the administration of a detention facility in written and oral form with complaints, suggestions and requests. A convict may also submit complaints, suggestions and requests to the national courts, the Prosecutor’s Office or other State authorities and institutions working in the field of human rights and freedoms. In that connection, the State party submits that the author never complained to the above-mentioned authorities and institutions.
The State party further provides information concerning the legislative background to the creation of the national preventive mechanism in the area of prevention of torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment. It notes that representatives of the mechanism have visited correctional facility No. 166/5 several times but that the author has never complained to the mechanism about his alleged unjustified treatment.
The State party submits that under article 9 (2) of the Penal Execution Code, convicts are obliged to obey and observe the internal rules and regulations of a detention facility, the lawful orders of the administration and other authorities responsible for carrying out a sentence. The reason for subjecting the author to a prison regime for a period of one year and six months was his constant violation of the internal rules of the detention facility. The author’s disciplinary punishments were justified and his claim that his right to freedom of religion has been violated is manifestly unfounded.
In addition, the State party notes that the author has received all necessary health care and that he has not been discriminated against in the provision of medical treatment. It further lists the specific medical treatments and examinations with which he has been provided.
In conclusion, the State party maintains that the author had not exhausted all available domestic remedies before submitting the communication to the Committee; that the penitentiary authorities and courts have observed the guarantees set out in article 26 of the Covenant; and that, therefore, the author’s claims are inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations
On 4 March 2015, the author commented on the State party’s observations, reiterating that he became a practising Muslim while in detention. He admits that he was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment for having committed very serious crimes. However, he maintains that this cannot serve as a justification for discrimination against him on religious grounds.
The author further makes a general observation that the penitentiary administrations of detention facilities in the State party constantly seize religious literature. Sometimes this is justified by the necessity to verify whether the literature contains publications on extremism or terrorism. In 2012 the Penitentiary Code was amended, prohibiting the growing of beards and moustaches in detention. In that regard, the author notes that he was punished for wearing a beard and, as a result, transferred to a prison with a stricter detention regime by the decision of the Arshalynskiy district court of the Akmolinskiy region on 13 February 2013.
The author provides examples of the ill-treatment and persecution of Muslim convicts in different detention facilities in the State party. He notes that in January 2015 the administration of the detention facility held a meeting with Muslim clergy with the aim of improving the situation of Muslim convicts, facilitating the understanding of Islam and detecting modes of religious extremism. However, the whole discussion was reduced to a clarification of the rituals, prayers and differences between various branches of Islam.10
- The author does not provide more specific details. ↩
The author submits that on 5 February 2015, he was sanctioned by the penitentiary administration for having prayed. He complained about this punishment to a representative of the Office of the Ombudsman and explained that he had been punished for praying “in a prohibited time and in a prohibited place”.11 On 7 February 2015, the author further complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of Astana concerning his disciplinary punishment.12
State party’s observations on the merits
By note verbale of 6 August 2015, the State party observed that it had fulfilled its obligations under the Covenant. It described in particular the recent developments in its penitentiary system, as regards its obligations under article 10 of the Covenant. In 2014, a concept paper on the project “Ten measures aimed at reducing the prison population” was presented to the Office of the General Prosecutor.
A new Penal Execution Code entered into force in January 2015. It increased the protection of the rights of convicted persons. For instance, it ensures the right of convicts to file suggestions and complaints with the penitentiary authorities, the higher supervisory administrative bodies, the courts and prosecutors’ offices, and public associations, as well as with the international organizations of human rights protection. Under the law, convicts are entitled to receive qualified legal aid. The new Penal Execution Code also provides for protection mechanisms of the rights of convicted persons through institutional, prosecutorial control and public oversight.
Following the adoption by the Government of the penitentiary system development programme for the period 2012–2015, 15 public oversight commissions currently operate in all the regions of the State party. Moreover, financing of the penitentiary system increases every year. Strict sanitary and hygiene standards are applied in the penitentiary facility quarters where convicts reside.
Concerning the implementation of article 18 of the Covenant, the State party asserts that the Constitution and the Act on Religious Activities and Religious Associations guarantee the right to freedom of conscience and religion. Article 22 (1) of the Constitution stipulates that everyone shall have the right to freedom of conscience. However, the State party explains, according to article 22 (2) of the Constitution, the right to freedom of conscience must not specify or limit universal human and civil rights and responsibilities before the State.
As to the merits of the communication, the State party submits that the author has been a practising Muslim since 1996. According to the author, on 5 February 2015 at around 6.30 a.m., correctional officers interrupted his prayers as they started to carry out a search in the cells. The State party rebuts the author’s allegation that such action is a systematic violation of his religious rights, submitting that the search was carried out according to the schedule of the correctional facility, that all inmates had been informed it would take place and had all left their cells, with the exception of the author who did not react and continued praying. Waiting for the author to finish his ritual, the chief officer again asked him to leave the cell, to which the author responded that he would write a complaint. No religious literature was seized and no disciplinary measures were applied to the author as a result of the search. Moreover, according to the daily routine in the penitentiary facility, between 6 and 6.30 a.m., inmates may do a morning workout if they choose, fix their beds and maintain personal hygiene, but the time slot is not considered private free time for them.
The State party denies any violation of the author’s right to freedom of religion by the officers of correctional facility No. 166/5. It states that under the Penal Execution Code, the internal regulations of a correctional facility or a penal enforcement body must be duly observed while practising religion, and all actions that involve disobeying the provisions of the Penal Execution Code or other legislation of the State party are prohibited. The State party maintains that the author sought to carry out religious rituals at an inappropriate time, that is, contrary to the internal regulations of the correctional facility. The State party explains that it is also required by law that all convicted persons in correctional facilities have a neat appearance, which is incompatible with wearing a beard.
The State party further clarifies that the author’s religious practices were only obstructed as a result of his non-compliance with the internal regulations of the correctional facility, that the officials did not seize any religious literature belonging to the author and the latter was not subjected to any disciplinary measures. According to article 6 of the Act on Religious Activities and Religious Associations and paragraph 6 of decree No. 503 of the Minister of Internal Affairs of 8 August 2014 on creating the conditions for practising religious rituals in prison, religious literature and other materials with religious content, as well as items holding religious meaning, are allowed in correctional facilities only after an expert theologian has reported on them. The Muslim inmates are not prohibited from praying. However, their prayers should not violate the internal regulations or the rights of other inmates. All inmates are allowed to conduct individual religious rituals in their cells as long as this does not obstruct the proper functioning of the correctional facility, does not violate the internal regulations and does not limit the rights and lawful interests of others. Moreover, according to paragraph 10 of the internal order regulations of correctional institutions, approved by order No. 819 of the Minister of Internal Affairs of 17 November 2014, convicted persons should have a tidy appearance, including short hair up to 1.5 centimetres long (with the exception of women), a well-maintained moustache and a shaved beard.
The State party further states that the author has not served his sentence in the other correctional facilities referred to in his communication (No.159/17 and No. 159/25 in the Karagandinsk region). In any event, the administrations of those facilities do not violate the right to freedom of religion of convicted persons either and the representatives of the national preventive mechanism and of the public oversight commission, who inspected the facilities, did not find any human rights violations, including discrimination committed on the grounds of religion or ethnicity.
As regards the author’s right to be considered for conditional release, the State party explains that, according to the Penal Code, conditional release may only be applied after a convicted person has served no less than two thirds of the overall term of punishment in cases where the punishment was imposed for the most serious crimes. The author would therefore only be entitled to conditional release as of 20 January 2019.
Additional submissions by the parties
On 7 October 2015, the author’s sister claimed that her brother’s eligibility to apply for conditional release had been deferred from 2016 to 2019 as a consequence of the discrimination he had suffered on the grounds of his religious beliefs.
By note verbale of 1 February 2016, the State party challenged the arguments pertaining to the interpretation of the rules applied to his conditional release.
The State party reiterates that the author must serve no less than two thirds of the overall term of his punishment before the court can consider his motion for conditional release. The author’s sister misinterpreted the circumstances of the author’s confinement, namely ignoring the additional sentence of 17 May 2010.
The State party further explains that the author’s sentence of 17 May 2010 was considered under the supervisory review procedure by the Supreme Court, which found no grounds for reviewing the sentence. The State party also submits that the author’s allegations that the domestic courts are biased against him are not substantiated and are not corroborated by the materials in the case file.
The State party reiterates that the author was only sanctioned in the correctional facility for repeatedly refusing to perform work duties. Wearing a beard and practising religion were not the grounds for imposing the disciplinary measures.
On 29 August 2016, the author’s sister provided a power of attorney to act on her brother’s behalf and a copy of her complaint on behalf of her brother to the Arshalynskiy district court.
By note verbale of 30 January 2017, the State party recalls again the content of the judgments of the domestic courts in respect of the author. It adds that on 4 November 2016, the motions filed by the author and his sister concerning the author’s sentences were partially granted by the Arshalynskiy district court. However, the court dismissed the author’s arguments regarding the exclusion of the charges for armed robbery committed by an organized group and the subsequent reduction of his sentence.
The State party explains that the court decided that the author’s punishment should remain unchanged.
On 23 December 2016, on appeal, the Akmolinskiy regional court reversed the decision of the lower court of 4 November 2016 on the grounds of procedural irregularities at the stage of admitting the motion of the author’s representative for consideration. Following that decision, on 13 January 2017 the author filed another motion for reconsideration of his sentence, which is pending before the Arshalynskiy district court as of the date of the State party’s submission.
Consideration of admissibility
Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol.
The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
The Committee notes the author’s contention that he was not represented by a lawyer and was not allowed to defend himself in person at the proceedings before the district court. He also claims that the regional court and the Supreme Court discriminated against him during the criminal proceedings by not giving due consideration to his claims regarding the violation of his procedural rights. The Committee, however, observes that these claims have not been raised at the domestic level so that the national courts would have the opportunity to address them and, if confirmed, to remedy them. In the absence of any other information or relevant explanation on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies and, therefore, this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee notes the author’s claims that he is a victim of discrimination based on his religious beliefs, as he was given an additional conviction and deprived of his procedural rights during court proceedings, his punishment was not reduced and he was not considered for conditional release. According to the author, that reflects discriminatory State policy towards convicted Muslims. The Committee notes that the State party rejects the author’s discrimination claim, maintaining that he was sentenced to additional time in prison owing to his repeated refusal to comply with the internal rules of the correctional facility and carry out building and improvement works, as required of all inmates. The Committee also notes the State party’s assertion that conditional release, whenever the punishment was imposed for the most serious crimes, may only be applied after the convicted person has served no less than two thirds of the overall term of punishment, which in the author’s case would have meant not before 20 January 2019.13 In the light of the considerations mentioned above and in the absence of any further information or explanations of pertinence on file, the Committee concludes that the author’s claim under article 26 of the Covenant is insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
- The communication was submitted to the Committee on 26 October 2013. ↩
The Committee notes the author’s claims that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment by the penitentiary administration based on his religious beliefs, which is also in violation of article 26 of the Covenant. According to the author, the penitentiary administration obstructed his religious practice, took away his religious literature and constantly demanded that he shave his beard. The Committee further notes the State party’s observation that under the Penal Execution Code convicted persons are obliged to comply with the internal rules and regulations of a detention facility, but that the author sometimes disobeyed the internal rules, for which he received disciplinary sanctions, and that under the amendment to the 2012 Penitentiary Code all inmates were prohibited from growing beards and moustaches in detention. The Committee also notes the State party’s assertion that the author was not subjected to different treatment from other inmates in the same facility beyond the ordinary application and implementation of the internal rules. In relation to the author’s claims relating to the confiscation of religious literature, the Committee notes that while the author insists that his religious literature was seized by the penitentiary administration, the State party submits that the officials of the facility did not seize any religious literature belonging to the author. The Committee considers that the author has not specified the time or circumstances in which his religious literature was seized. The Committee further considers that the author has not provided any information or explanations indicating that he was subjected to different treatment from other inmates in the same facility beyond the ordinary application and implementation of the internal rules. The Committee therefore concludes that the author’s claim under article 26 is not sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility and is thus inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee considers, nevertheless, that although the author does not invoke it specifically, the facts as submitted in relation to his religious practice and the ban on growing a beard claimed under article 26 raise issues under article 18 of the Covenant. It notes that the State party has not denied that it obstructed the author’s religious practice and demanded that he shave his beard.
The Committee considers that the claims of the author under article 18 of the Covenant relating to the obstruction of his religious practice and to the repeated demand that he shave his beard have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares them admissible and proceeds with their consideration on the merits.
Consideration of the merits
The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee notes the author’s claim that the penitentiary administration constantly obstructed his religious practices and demanded that he shave his beard. The Committee further notes the State party’s affirmation that the author was subjected to disciplinary measures in the correctional facility only for his repeated refusal to carry out work duties and that wearing a beard and practising religion were not the grounds for imposing those measures on him. The State party has also argued that according to the internal order regulations of correctional institutions, convicted persons should have a tidy appearance, including short hair, a well-maintained moustache and a shaved beard.
The Committee reaffirms that the freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching encompasses a broad range of acts and that the concept of worship extends to ritual and ceremonial acts giving expression to belief, as well as various practices integral to such acts.14 The Committee recalls that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief is not absolute and may be subject to limitations that are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.15 The requirement of necessity implies that the restriction must be proportional in severity and intensity to the purpose being sought and may not become the rule.16 The Committee further recalls that it is for the State party to demonstrate that the restrictions on the author’s rights under article 18 of the Covenant were necessary and proportionate.
Regarding the obstruction of the author’s religious practice, the Committee notes the State party’s observation that all inmates are allowed to conduct individual religious rituals in their cells as long as this does not obstruct the proper functioning of the correctional facility and that in fact the author sought to carry out religious rituals at an inappropriate time. The Committee considers that maintaining order in the facility makes certain restrictions necessary. In that regard, the uniform and collective conduct of all inmates at a fixed time, such as during building works and searches, are necessary and even if religious practice is hindered during the period of such scheduled activities, those restrictions cannot be seen as disproportionate to the purpose of maintaining order in the correctional facility without evidence that religious practice must be undertaken at that specific time. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that in the present case, the obstruction of the author’s religious practice does not constitute a violation of article 18 (1) of the Covenant.
As to the demand that the author shave his beard, the Committee notes that while the State party states that according to the internal order regulations of correctional institutions, those convicted should have a tidy appearance, including short hair up to 1.5 centimetres long (with the exception of women), well-maintained moustaches and shaved beards, it does not explain why those measures are necessary. The Committee, however, notes that persons already subject to certain legitimate constraints, such as prisoners, continue to enjoy their rights to manifest their religion or belief to the fullest extent compatible with the specific nature of the constraints imposed on them. In that regard, the Committee recalls that in interpreting the scope of permissible limitation clauses, States parties should proceed from the need to protect the rights guaranteed under the Covenant. Limitations imposed must be established by law and must not be applied in a manner that would vitiate the rights guaranteed in article 18. Limitations may be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated.17 In the present case, however, the Committee observes that, unlike the need to maintain a fixed schedule of inmate activity, it was not explained how wearing a beard would hinder the maintenance of order in the prison facility. The Committee accordingly considers that the State party has failed to justify the restrictions on the manifestation of the author’s religion and concludes that the blanket prohibition of wearing a beard, worn to give expression to the Muslim faith, is contrary to the freedom to manifest one’s religion and therefore amounts to a violation of article 18 (1) of the Covenant.
- Ibid. ↩
The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of the author’s rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant.
Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose rights under the Covenant have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated to, inter alia, take appropriate steps to provide the author with adequate compensation and to review the Penitentiary Code of 2012. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.
Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the present Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to disseminate them widely in the official languages of the State party.